News

Constitutional campaign will test leadership

In less than three years (if all goes to current plan), the nation will vote to change or not change the Constitution to recognise Australia's First peoples.

A wide ranging expert panel has been appointed to lead community consultation and recommend possible changes.

Indigenous leaders on the inside and outside of that panel face tough decisions. What changes should they campaign for? What is Australia ready to embrace? And what is the best way to garner support?

The chasm between the traditional Aboriginal rights agenda and what most Australians will support has not grown any smaller in recent years. And yet this referendum demands enormous discipline from campaigners to avoid dividing the 'yes' vote for constitutional change through bitter debate.

Several ideas have been put forward. Currently the Commonwealth is empowered to legislate in regards to Aboriginal people ('the races power'). Some are arguing for the races power to be removed, while others want it amended so that it cannot be used to negatively discriminate against Aboriginal people. Others also want a general guarantee of non-discrimination for all Australians.

The content of the Indigenous 'recognition' section (either in the preamble or the introductory sections of the Constitution) is the greatest challenge.

A new preamble, which included a reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that was unpopular amongst Indigenous leaders, failed at referendum in 1999.

Campaigners would probably like to see recognition that Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders have continuing rights by virtue of their status as Australia's Indigenous peoples.

Yet Indigenous leaders are already showing caution in formulating their arguments - they have learnt from experience in the past 10-20 years that their proposals must be carefully crafted to not trigger red alert buttons within the community.

Any proposal will need to gain sweeping national support and bipartisan endorsement.

So what do Australians think?

Online responses to recent articles on constitutional recognition tell us a lot. Many ask, are all Australians not supposed to be equal? One person writes "Enshrining one race in the Constitution represents nothing more than racism. The sooner everyone in this country starts acting as one, the sooner we will be one." Another adds,"didn't Aboriginals become full citizens of Australia in 1967 with the same voting rights as the rest of us?" There is also a prevailing sense that this is a distraction from the 'real' problems in unemployment, education and health.

Indigenous leaders should take advantage of support for equality in the Constitution. Removing or amending the races power is about creating equality. So is a general non-discrimination clause. These changes might be in fact easier to sell than Indigenous recognition.

Recognition is about modernizing the Constitution so it reflects Australia as we see ourselves today, compared to 1901. As a minimum, recognition afforded in the High Court Mabo and Wik decisions should be reflected in our Constitution.

Australia is the unique home for Indigenous cultures, unlike other cultures and languages which have other origins around the world. Most Australians can appreciate this. The desire to know and understand our roots is a universal one.

We must give people the chance to change.

When the Rudd Government pushed ahead with the Apology, many feared it would open the 'floodgates for compensation'. Or force guilt on every Australian. After the Apology, many Australians experienced a change of heart. Corporate interest in Indigenous affairs sky-rocketed. Indigenous Australians now have access to far more influential allies.

Unlike the Apology, the referendum involves millions of Australians making a personal decision. Getting a positive result will take far more leadership by Parliaments.

But the new political dynamic is slightly more promising. The Wild Rivers bill championed by the Federal Opposition significantly elevated native title rights. Even though political and economic interests drove this Bill, it shows us that the time for 'boxed in' thinking is over. Thankfully no side of politics has boxed themselves into a corner yet on which constitutional changes they would support.

The success of this referendum will also test the leadership of Prime Minister Julia Gillard - if it falls apart, her public record on this issue will be scrutinised.

But politicians are not the only ones being tested .

This will be one of the greatest tests of Indigenous leadership probably since the writing of the Native Title Act.

The suggestion that there should be a plebiscite amongst Indigenous Australians on what changes should be put forward sounds good in theory. But in reality, what will happen if Indigenous Australians decide on a proposal that cannot be accepted by Parliament or a majority of Australians? What would this do to race relations?

Negotiation and consensus building by leaders is the way forward.

The harder left will look for a point of resistance - and 'sovereignty not recognition' might well become their catch-cry. These leaders might argue that constitutional recognition is an attempt to 'pacify' Indigenous people.

Samir Kassir, a journalist who wrote extensively on middle-eastern conflict, once said that true leaders give their people permission to step out of constant struggle and embrace forgiveness and change. Chaining oneself to an unachievable agenda continues to reinforce feelings of victimhood and disappointment.

A failed referendum would be a devastating set-back for race relations. Another lifetime may pass before any Government has the courage or incentive to open the question again.

After the referendum, many Australians will consider this 'question' done and dusted. Just as many Australians, outraged by Howard's refusal to say Sorry, felt a sense of completion after the Apology.

The time is 'now or never' for leaders off and on the expert panel to listen and make their case. Details need to be thrashed out behind closed doors. A debate through the media can quickly get distorted and entrench positions from all sides. Ultimately they must win allies who can fight more than half the battle through their standing in the community alone. As the 1967 referendum shows us, changes that will create equality are a strong starting point.

TAD 08 Mar 2011 5:17:44pm
Leadership is based in what could be described as a Moral right with humility, justice and humanity as the linch pins or core. However if leaders choose to abandon that arena they loose all crediability and debase all of society with catchy jingoism which does nothing to remedy the deep divisons in society.

In Relation to constitutional change I can not or do not believe Australia is politically mature enough for this debate without debasing the rest of us.

I'm happy to disclose that a big part of my time in Federal Politics was working for Minister Jenny Macklin - and before that with Shadow spokesperson Senator Chris Evans. As it says in my bio, I am no longer working in Parliament. This piece represents my personal opinion.